WASHINGTON TREATIES

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIX, Issue 11293, 19 August 1922, Page 7

WASHINGTON TREATIES

APPROVAL OF RATIFICATION REPORT ON CONFERENCE DISCUSSED IN PARLIAMENT. TRIBUTE! TO SIR JOHN SALMOND. Tile Prime Minister, in accordance with his promise, gave the House of Representatives an opportunity of discussing last night Sir John Salmond's report on the work of the "Washington Conference. In opening the debate, Mr Massey said that he believed that the Dominion had reason to congratulate itsolf on the able and efficient manner in which this country had been represented at the Washington Conference. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr T. M. Wilford): Hear, hear. That, said Mr Massey, had been expected, and our expectation had not been disappointed. (Hear hear.) While it was. not strictly necessary for the Dominions to ratify the treaties made at Washington, Sir John .Salmond recommended in his report that their ratification by the Mother Country should tie approved by both Houses of the New Zealand Parliament. He, therefore, moved —"That the House of Representatives of New Zealand, in Parliament assembled, assents to the ratification by His Majesty of the Washington Treaties as negotiated by the plenipotentiaries at the recent Washington Conference/' The Washington Conference, continued Mr Massey, had not been able to make war impossible. That \%\3< not expected, though it might come in time. But one we had to be thankful for was that it had been possible to bring about a better understanding between the three great naval Powers of the world—Britain, the United States, and Japan—than had existed for some years previously. PEACH IN PACIFIC. The result was that the danger of war In the Pacific had been made, for a good many years to come, much less than we ail anticipated some time ago. The conference had done away with the ruinous competition in naval hrmaments. The Battle of Jutland had shown that our battleships were in some respects defective. America and Japan, as our Allies, “had the same knowledge ee tur Admiralty, and they had built-some of the most powerful war vessels the world had ever eeen. It looked as if Britain would (have to loin in the competition; but, happily, that necessity had been averted. There was, however, nothing- to prevent any Power in the world building 'as many cruisers up to 10,000 tons with eight inch guns as it pleased. Nor had the Conference done away with submarines or air forces in any form. There was no limit to the number of destroyers and submarines that might he built. But he was not nearly so anxious about submarines as during the war period, because by the end of the war we had got the measure of the submarines, no less than 203 of them having been sunk. The hydrophone and depth-charge put an end to the submarine menace. Mr J. Vigor Brown (Napier): And the ,f Q" ©hips. (Hear, hear.) As to aeroplanes, added Mr Massey, he had' not the slightest doubt that the aeroplane of the future would he greatly improved as compared with the aeroplane of the war and of to-day, dangerous as they were. Improvements were still going on. He hid not say that he looked forward to war in the immediate future. Not a bit. But we could not afford to take risks. It had) been said that the aeroplane should take the place of the battleship; but • he thought that the battleships would oontinue, though no squadron of battleships, probable no single jtfhip, would go to sea in future without an aeroplane or aeroplane force, to ward off attaok hy enemy aeroplanes. One class of ships had also been prohibited . besides those mentioned, and that was the aircraft-carrier. He supposed that the object of the limitation on their construction was to limit the number of aircraft that could accompany a fleet to sea. FORTIFICATIONS LIMITED. There was also a provision in tho treaties prohibiting Great Britain, America and) Japan building fortifications within certain specified areas in the Pacific. The prohibition extended to Hongkong and to all present and future British possessions in the Pacific except in the case of the islands adjacent to the mainland of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. The prohibition covered the Cook Islands and’ Western Samoa But it did not matter about Samoa, because, in any case, countries becoming possessed of ex-German colonics were prohibited by their mandates from fortifying any one of them. The treaty would continue in forco until any one of Ihe five, not four, Powers concerned— Groat Britain, America, Japan, Franco, and itwo years' notice to determine it. But if such notice was given, no doubt another conference would be ( called) and an attempt mode to renew it in a more satisfactory form. "WHEN WAR WILL BE NO MOKE/' "I believe," decfarea Mr Massey, "that a time will come when war will be no mote. 1 honestly believe that to be the oase. But if it ever does ©ome—and I hope it will'—it will be by the combination of the groat Powers of the world to say to the others who are inclined to fight, 'War must cease, and you must refer your disputes to a Court of International Justice, such as that set up by the League of Nations/ I look upon the setting u-p of that oourt as the very best thing that the League of Nations has done up to the present. That alone justifies its existence; and it is worthy of all possible support." STATUS OF DOMINIONS, At Washington, Mr Massey pointed out, the Dominions were not recognised as independent nations, but were there as part and parcel of the British Empire. They had only been recognised aa separate nations in connection with the Peace Treaty and the League of Nations; and he was bound to say that he had never liked the arrangement made in connection with the League. It was nonsense to 6 ay that by the signing of the treaty we became independent nations. In many cages, with the people who took that view the wish was father to the thought. It was considered that giving the Dominions separate votes a© indei i ’ < 1 !

pendent nations would strengthen the mana of tho British Empire; hut he did not think so. It would, he thought, be a serious things for the Empire if at a conference some of the Dominion© voted ono way and some another. Yet some of I * the Dominions were opposed to going tc» Washington unless they had separate invitations. A request was made to him. as Prime Minister of New Zealand, to decline the invitation in it© then form or to protest emphatically against the fact that no separate invitations wore forthcoming for the different Dominions of the Empire. He replied that our, representative had already sailed, and that, while the point made was important from one point of view, it was even more important that the Empire should speak with one voice, and with no uncertain ' sound. And he was glad to see that that ' was the effect of the arrangements made " at Washington. (Hear, hear.) ; PROVISION FOR NATIONAL SAFETY. I One passage in Sir John Salmond's reI port appealed especially to him—"lt is i the right and duty of every State to . make proper provision for its national • safety/' We could not, said Mr Massey, allow the lives of our 17,000 men , who had fallen in the war to have been given in vain; but they would havo . been given in vain if we did not see to i it that the defenoe of the Empire was z effectively secured and that it was pre- „ pared for the event of war. He did not : think that the British Empire would . ever again make war on another coun- - try; but it must be prepared for de- ■ fence. In a communication he had re- . eeived from the British Admiralty, with [ which lie was naturally often in corres- : pondence, the Admiralty emphasised the , first principle of naval defence, namely, that it could only be assured by sufficient naval forces, capable of offensive action and endowed with that full freedom of movement which could only be given by adequate fuelling and base ! facilities, and pointed out the consequent necessity of the Empire possessing? a fleet capable of controlling 4 maritime communications. They outlined Mis naval policy by ivhich New Zealand could best assist in Empire naval defence as follows, giving the various points in order of relative importance:—“(l) During the period of financial stringency, maintenance by New Zealand of a nucleus of a sea-going 6quadron which, when time© are better, can be rapidly expanded. Expansion to consist of light cruisers and ocean-going submarine*. *2) Provision of oil reserves in New Zealand. (3) Assistance in equipping Elmpire naval basis 1 by financial contributions of supply of material manufactured in New Zealand. (4) Providing bases, docks, depots, and reserves of stores and fuel jn New Zealand for vessels maintained by New Zealand. (5) Providing for local protection o* trade and storage of guns for merchant ships and their escorts and providing trained personnel for them. (6) Providing mobile defence organisations for ports, including mine-sweeping organisation." WILL STILL DEPEND ON NAVAL POWER. That was the opinion of the men best qualifiel to judge. That was the future, and if we and other ports of the Empire were ab l © to go on those lines he did not think we would need to have any fear for ihe .future. The question of finance arose, and at present # every portion of the Empire was experiencing the same difficulty. At the time of the last Imperial Conference it was expected there would b© something coming in the way of relaxation from Germany, but ©o far little or nothing had come. Had! there been some millions of money coming from Germany he would have been pleased to let the money go as a contribution to naval defenoe. We oould not loaf on Great Britain for our defence. The Empire existed by sea power. Mr Isitt asked if the Premier would state what part he thought aircraft and submarines would play in the defence of our coasts. Mr Massey said he would not rely on either alone. One could not say how the submarine would be improved in the future, but it was worthy of note that in the war a)U the German submarines sunk only one capital ship. He believed we would be dependent on naval power in the future as in the past. We never knew where trouble would come, but it would not come at all if we were ready to meet it. PARTNERS IN EMPIRE. A point that ought to be emphasised was the status of the Dominion. There wo© no doubt it was greatly improved now to what it was before the war. We had become partners in the Empire. We had a right not only to consultation, but to a share in the management of the affairs of the Empire, and these included the making of war or peace, the making of treaties and the question of Empire communication. A great deal had been done, but a great deal remained to be done. Gur own internal affairs must come first, but something , more might be done in the way of continuity of conference. He would like . to see the Empire conferences held once a year. Mr Forbes raised) the question of whe- . ther it would be possible for the Prime Minister to attend the conferences if thev were held once a year. Mr Massey said we had been ably rei (presented at ‘the Washington Conferi enoe, while the Prime Minister reiuaini ed in New Zealand. However, he would say the representative should be the , Prime Minister if possible. He thought tho body might come to be a modification of the Privy Council in the form ► of an Empire Council. ! THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS. , Speaking of the League of Nations, Mr > Massey thought that body might lead to a false sense of security. There was ; no power behind the League to force its . decisions. The United States, Germany ; and Russia were not in the League, : which partly consisted of a whole lot of | fourth-class powers. He would like to \ see a combination of nation© led by Britain and America, who would be able to say to all the other nation© of theworld that they must keep the peace. They would b© 4 a sort of international police. The risks we ran during the war were frightful, the escapes remarkable, and he - believed nothing but the i hand of Divine Providence saved us in 1918. He believed we had been protected i for some great purpose that had not been ■ revealed. Perhaps portion of that purpose would be the bringing of peace to the whole world. LEADEfToF IMPERIALISM AND CONSTITUTIONALISM. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr T. M. Wilford) seconded the motion. He said the Liberal side of the House yielded to none in it© Imperialism or its adherence to constitutionalism. China, to-day, with its 400,000,000 people in a state of war, was an absolute menace to the world, he declared, in ©pit© of the Washington Conference. Amongst the great achievement© of the Conference were—(l) that the perils of Anglo-Ameri-can conflict were averted for the first time by frank and sane consultation; (2) these two great branches of the English-speaking peoples had been bound together by the acceptance of joint responsibilities; (3) for the first time in history a sincere and firm naval pact had been achieved by four great naval powers; and (4) it had produced a new pact improving upon and amplfying the Anglo-Japanese Alliance, extending it to include also America, France and Italy The Washington Conference produced a new pact which should end for ever the claim of Japan to territory in China. MUST TRADE WITH GERMANY. The Washington Treaty did not restrict aircraft. Unfortunately aircraft was a menace to humanity, qnd the experts laid it down that the future of the naval fleets was rendered uncertain by aircraft. Total naval disarmament was not discussed at the conference. It struck him as important? that the provisions respecting submarines and noiaon gas were signed by only five parties. Ho wa© thoroughly satisfied with the status New Zealand had at that conference. The Prime Minister had spoken of the escapes we had during the war, but he believed* that Germanv had had just as E&any ©scapes. The Washington Treaty

created a new chapter in diplomatic history. It was a matter for congratulation that for ten years there would be no more building of capital ships and no increases in other directions. Any time we could eend a delegate to a conference for arriving at peace instead of war he would welcome it. There was a menace in the world to-day. Fights were occurring in many countries to-day, and there was trouble in the near East. Ther© was another menace*—the position of Germany. Whether it wa© popular or not, we had to trade with Germany and Russia or fight them. LEADER OF THE LABOUR PARTY. WELCOMES A PEACE MOVE. The Leader of the Labour Party (Mr H. E. Holland) said the Labour party welcomed any advance move for peace. The main achievement of the Washington Conference seemed to have been a reduction in the number of capital ships, but the auxiliaries had no limitation whatever placed on them. It was to the great credit of the British representatives at the conference that they 'proposed the abolition of the submarine, tie considered that France, always the most highly militarised Power, was the greatest danger to the world's peace today, largely because of the lack of mental balance on the part of her elatcemen and those at the head of her affairs. Her notion respecting the reparations was the most statesmanlike thing done by Great Britain in modern years. The League of Nations to-day was a League of the Allied Powers in the recent war. What was wanted was a league of every nation under the eun. THE FOUR POWER PACT. The Hon. C. J. Parr welcomed the superseding of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance by the Four Power Pact, which would secure for us at least the moral support of America in case of trouble in the Pacific. There was no reason whatever, to his mind, why we should not preseivo the very friendliest relations with Japan and \h® Hast generally, while at the same time drawing still closer the bonds that unite us to our kith and kin in America. (Hoar, hear.) As assisting us to do that, he regarded the Four Power Pact as even more important than the treaty foT the limitation of naval armament. He regarded a naval fleet, to which Canada, New Zealand 1 and Australia should contribute, as absolutely necessary for the adequate protection of British interests in the Pacific. DEFECT IN PREMIER'S SPEECH. . Mr H. Atmore (Nelson) said he feared that there was a tendency to overrate the result© of the Washington Conference. As Sir John Salmond pointed out in his report, the agreement was not one to preserve peace, nor was it designed for that end. The nations would not be prevented, nor discouraged, from going to war with each other by a proportionate reduction in their armaments. Nor had the conference any moral significance. He was proud of Britain having made the offer to wipe out international war indebtedness, but America wo© too keen after the dollars to follow suit. Even if, however, America forgave ber Allies their indebtedness to her of •6860,000,000, her war expenditure would not he equal to one-tenth of Britain's; while the lives she lost in the war did not equal those lost by Australia. America, again, oould do much to stabilise condition© in Central Europe, but she was holding aloof, and leaving Britain, os usual, to bear the burden. If America, with her 104 millions of people, would only really do her part, the peace of the world would be assured. As to the British Nlavy, while New Zealand was contributing more per head to it than any other Dominion, he was disappointed to see that, though we had <£33 per head in the savings banks, as against <66 per head in Great Britain, our contribution to the navy was 6s per head only, as compared with 36s per head for the hard-up people of Great Britain. It was, he held, the great defect in the Prime Ministers speech that night that he had not proposed a moire adequate contribution by New Zealand. It Would pay us to contribute our full share, because Britain woe our greatest and) beet customer, and it would rebound to our benefit if we eased as far as we could her burden of taxation, thus helping to solve her unemployed problem and increasing the purdnasing-power of those who bought our meat, wool, butter, and cheese He hoped that the Prime Minister, before the session closed, would give the House an opportunity of discussing the giving of a fuller and firmer contribution to the British Navy. The Hon. W. Downie Stewart, referring to tho attitude of the New Zealand Government towards the League of Nations, said that if there was any tentativeness in that attitude, it wa© duo to the fact that the status as separate nations given to the Dominions in the constitution of *he League, was regarded by the Goven ment as greater than the Dominions could bear, and ns undesirable from tho point of view of Preserving unimpaired the unity of the Empire The Hon. J. A. Hanau (Invercargill) continued the discussion. At 11.10 p.m. tho resolution was carried unanimously, and the House adjourned till 2.30 on Tuesday next.